Correspondence - Item 10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dear Mayor Amezcua and Councilmembers, I am writing to respectfully urge the Council to reconsider Santa Ana’s current ban on short-term rentals (STRs) and explore a more balanced, regulated alternative. Recent research (notably the Orange County Grand Jury’s 2024-25 report on STRs) suggests that outright bans may not be the only – or the best – way to achieve these aims. In fact, the Grand Jury found that STRs are not a significant factor in our housing shortage. As the report concludes, STRs “should not be considered a significant factor in the availability of affordable housing in Orange County,” (ocgrandjury.org). In plain terms, removing STRs entirely is unlikely to substantially open up more housing – a conversion analysis in the report showed that even converting all existing rentals would yield only a small fraction of the needed units (ocgrandjury.orgocgrandjury.org). Moreover, the report emphasizes that STRs “can be good neighbors” when responsible regulations are in place (ocgrandjury.org). It specifically notes that the burden of making rentals community-friendly should be on the hosts and the city – not on ordinary neighborhood residents (ocgrandjury.org). This means we can address nuisance concerns through clear rules (such as quiet hours, occupancy limits, and contact information requirements) rather than simply forbidding rentals altogether. Short-term rentals can also benefit our local economy and city budget. The Grand Jury highlights that even modest STR tax collections add to a city’s general fund (ocgrandjury.org). For example, Newport Beach reports that STR Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) makes up about 2% of its annual revenue (ocgrandjury.org) – all dollars that support city services. Santa Ana could similarly capture new revenue. A well-run home-sharing boosts tourism dollars and supports local jobs and stores, helping the whole community. Conversely, the Grand Jury cautions that bans are not a panacea. Even cities with bans struggle to enforce them fully, and unintended problems arise. The report bluntly observes that “even with robust Code Enforcement, a city’s statutory ban on STRs is not enough to keep STRs from operating,” (ocgrandjury.org). In practice, after a ban some homeowners simply continue hosting without a permit, and it becomes a game of “whack-a-mole” for enforcement. The report describes how cities that assumed STRs were implicitly banned without clear laws often lost court challenges, forcing them to scramble to write new ordinances (ocgrandjury.org). This suggests our city could continue expending resources on enforcement and litigation without solving the underlying issues. Instead, a regulated approach – where any homeowner who wants to rent must obtain a permit, adhere to safety inspections, and follow clear rules – would allow the city to control and monitor STRs, rather than driving them underground. Importantly, the Grand Jury also outlines “best practices” for STRs that protect neighborhoods. Examples include requiring hosts to provide a local emergency contact, posting their permit number on all listings, and submitting TOT payments monthly (ocgrandjury.org). Enforcing noise curfews and parking limits also addresses the common complaints that motivated the ban. In fact, the report notes that Orange County cities like Seal Beach, Dana Point, and Orange have adopted these “Good Neighbor” policies and now see very low complaint rates (ocgrandjury.org). By following these guidelines, STR hosts can be held accountable so that neighbors are not disturbed, and the city retains oversight and revenue.